September 9, 2006

Over on Kos, where they keep calling the show "Disney/ABC conservative fan fiction," they're saying:

[T]he advertisement makes it very clear just what sort of Limbaugh-style political porn this thing was intended to be.

The trailer certainly makes the movie look exciting. It made me go back to the NYT review by TV critic Alessandra Stanley. ("'The Path to 9/11' is an unsparing, and at times hyperbolic, portrait of bureaucratic turf wars, buck passing and complacency.") A lot of the bloggers who have been railing about "The Path" are laying into her. I see that there's a correction there now:

The TV Watch column in Weekend yesterday, about the ABC mini-series “The Path to 9/11,” referred incorrectly to a conclusion of the commission that investigated the terror attacks. The commission said the accusation that President Clinton had ordered air strikes against Osama bin Laden in August 1998 to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal was one of several factors that “likely had a cumulative effect on future decisions about the use of force” against Mr. bin Laden. It did not conclude that the scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat.

There. Happy now?

Anyway, this is Stanley's key point that's relevant to the demands to yank the film:

All mini-series Photoshop the facts. “The Path to 9/11” is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place. It relies on the report of the Sept. 11 commission, the King James version of all Sept. 11 accounts, as well as other material and memoirs. Some scenes come straight from the writers’ imaginations. Yet any depiction of those times would have to focus on those who were in charge, and by their own accounts mistakes were made.

Various bloggers (and commenters in the preceding post) are crying slander and saying that the public figures who are seeing themselves portrayed here ought to sue. I'm not going to belabor the point I've already made in comments, but it seems very clear to me that the legal standard they are talking about would be outrageously repressive. Why is it so hard to step back for a minute and see how the ideas you're expressing would apply in other situations?

Fenrisulven (oops, just plain Fen), you forgot to threaten to pull all funding from the entire University of Wisconsin school system until they disavow themselves of her slander, and revoke her tenure.

(also, part-time adjunct Kevin Barrett should be immediately promoted to Dean Barrett and begin the purge of all unprogressive instructors like Prof. Althouse remaining at UW campuses)

' All mini-series Photoshop the facts. “The Path to 9/11” is not a documentary, or even a docu-drama; it is a fictionalized account of what took place. It relies on the report of the Sept. 11 commission, the King James version of all Sept. 11 accounts, as well as other material and memoirs. Some scenes come straight from the writers’ imaginations. Yet any depiction of those times would have to focus on those who were in charge, and by their own accounts mistakes were made.'

Be that as it may; the posted clip states it is 'the official true story' and implies that 'one decision changed the world.' If that decision didn't happen in the manner portrayed in the movie and is in fact fictionalized, then it's not the 'official true story'.

Re Allesandra Stanley's review: here we see the NYT, the oracle of received liberal opinion, admitting that the Dems' attacks miss the point. If even the NYT thinks the Dems are overreaching, the rest of us may conclude that they are reacting this way because thet really do have something to hide. Who better than Sandy Berger to serve as spokesman for this operation?

Not sure if anyone has posted this information before, but here's a look at The Walt Disney Company CEO Bob Iger's campaign contributions over the last few years. He has donated to some Republican groups, but primarily donates to Democrats. Amongst his beneficiaries are such right-wing heavies as Rahm Emanuel, Tom Daschell, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton.

And the Chairman of the Board is the well-known John Bircher George Mitchell.

Sorry if this has been posted before, but I refuse to read all the other comments. I'm willing to bet there are nowhere near enough puns from Ruth Ann to make it worthwhile....

We will know that we are truly at war when we focus our comments and energies on how to win, instead of fretting and gossiping about a television program.

John at Powerline has a nicer response than me:

"I wouldn't care about this--nor, I suppose, would the Democrats--but for the fact that the Democrats are running on a platform of returning to the terrorism policies of the Clinton administration, which, whether through distraction, miscalculation, or sheer indifference, were inept." [emp added]

I recall watching a show about Bin Laden, probably on the History channel, a *long* time ago that was a documentary and did show how time after time (someone said 10?) the Clinton administration either had Bin Laden in their sights or else were offered him, and they didn't take action.

The "why" according to that documentary was essentially that they believed that either assasinating him or taking him prisoner would have been *illegal*.

In hindsight, of course, this was a mistake. Still, the idea that the threat from Al Qaida was less than it was was a pervasive idea, not limited to the Clinton administration. And I don't really think that most people support the notion that we ought to go about assasinating potential threats as a matter of policy.

The trailer says "why not" and quite frankly I think that a strong answer to "why not" can be made. The problem is that the only answer that will fly is that what is clear in hindsight was not clear at the time, and that it seemed like a good idea, at the time, to treat the terrorist threat as a law enforcement issue, in which case having a *legal* standing to capture or kill Bin Laden was necessary.

But that can't be said without *also* saying, "But now we know better. It's not a criminal, law-enforcement problem."

Brent, your implication that I am somehow cheating is laughable. Impatience with reading the back and forth of several hundred comments, most of which are boringly predictable (on both (all) sides), is hardly a cheat.

I have read many of the comments here, and seen other reports on other websites. (Shockingly, this is not the only website I read.) Note that I didn't say I hadn't read anything about the subject, nor did I state that I hadn't read any comments. I'm making this point explicitly because your shoddy reading comprehension skills seem to indicate a lack of ability to draw proper inferences from written statements. (To be more explicit still, that last sentence just called you a slack-jawed idiot.)

Given that a large number of the comments I have read around the web are calling the movie in question right-wing propaganda, I thought a quick look at the donations of the CEO of the company might be in order. If someone else has done that, then all I have done is repeat information already available. In other words, I have just restated an earlier point, like most of the other 300+ comments on this blog concerning this topic.

Also of note is that I went to the trouble to actually doing some independent research to contribute to the discussion, unlike your post that offered nothing but cheap insults.

If such a back-handed insult and accusation is the best you can do, then just don't comment and spare the rest of us your lack of insight.

BTW, I never cheated or "fudged" on book reports in high school. In fact, I rarely did book reports in high school, and dropped out after a year and a half to go to college. I have written about that topic before.

Perhaps if you had done a little research instead of just bashing away at your keyboard, you may have known that. You are much more guilty of passing along an opinion without having bothered to look into the matter than I am.

I'd be the last person to defend the Clinton administration or Democrats in general against the (in my view accurate) charge that they simply don't take defense matters seriously, but the fact is people tend to accept what they see in TV and movies as factual, regardless of disclaimers to the contrary. I once got into an argument with somebody in a newsgroup about airline safety in which they threw the "QANTAS is the safest airline - they've never had a crash*" nonsense at me, and cited as their source for that information (I am not making this up) the movie "Rain Man", a work of fiction that didn't purport to be anything but. People will come away from this thinking that all the events portrayed therein happened, trust me.

All miniseries do photoshop the facts, but we do a lousy job of teaching our kids (and ourselves) to watch something that is purportedly factual and wonder "could the writer possibly know that event, sentence, or thought actually happened?"

"The "why" according to that documentary was essentially that they believed that either assasinating him or taking him prisoner would have been *illegal*"

Like you, I'm mystified at the attitude of those who want our enemies arrested and prosecuted. I wonder if it's one of those "when the only tool you have is a hammer..." situations, where many of the folks deciding how to handle this are lawyers who naturally see that as the solution. But it's also a gray area since the battle is, for the most part, against organizations rather than states and doesn't fit any template we have that well. I think we may be in a period of transition in warfare too. There was a time when attacking your enemy from a position of cover was viewed as cowardly - today it would be considered insane not to if that option was available. Likewise, I think we'll see more tactics used against terror groups and sponsors that probably do violate existing laws and norms, but that future generations will look at and say we were crazy not to use from the beginning.

*They'd had at least two hull losses as QANTAS at the time, and several others as corporate predecessors of that company. Sorry for such an early thread creep.

I'm making this point explicitly because your shoddy reading comprehension skills seem to indicate a lack of ability to draw proper inferences from written statements. (To be more explicit still, that last sentence just called you a slack-jawed idiot.)

I taught remedial reading at the local adult high school every spring for the last three years. Doesn't mean I'm perfect, just that its obvious you haven't researched me either, bro, because I blogged on it here a while back.

When it comes to supporting documentation for my position, I'll take you on anyday, anytime.

And we don't have the same sibling rivalry that we used to. And no one bothers to mock the NG anymore as "weekend warriors". And female grunts have proven themselves on the battlefield [the tampon used to stop a sucking chest wound was brilliant too]. Amazing how a real crisis throws all that nonsense aside.

While your pants are in a wringer, You failed mightily to infer the point that I was making about your quote.

You said:

Sorry if this has been posted before, but I refuse to read all the other comments.

That "implies" that you felt the need to diss the other people that did take the time to give their "opinion" and perspectives, informed or not. No one is asking you to read every Althouse post. But goodness, man, there were only 14 comments ahead of you - the people that took the time to write those weren't worthy of Icepick's time to find out where the conversation was going? How disrespectful! You just dissed 14 people! Please spare us your valuable insight!

It's like having the smartest guy in the room (let's say he's named, oh, "Twicepicked") walking over to join the in-progress conversation of three other adults and saying "I don't know if anyone mentioned this, because I don't want to bother to catch up, but did you know ....."

I'm wondering where we would be today if Clinton had spent less time sodomizing subordinate employees and more time tracking Al Queda as they plotted 9-11.

Fen, are you confusing sodomy and fellatio? There's probably a glossary in the Starr report.

I spent some time wondering, too, where we'd be if the Republican Congress hadn't wasted time and money and focus investigating Clinton instead of just accepting they lost the election. Kind of waste of time, now, though, years after the fact.

Why shouldn't Democrats try and do the same thing here now that the situation is reversed?

They are not doing the same thing. Senate Democrats have threatened to yank ABC's license unless ABC edits the film.

You know this, yet you still continue to spin.

Why should Democrats be held to a higher standard than Republicans

Even if you assume Republicans would do such a thing, why should Democrats define themselves by what their opponent does? Do you guys have any values or principles? Your morality is that "its okay if everyone else does it"?

A definition of sodomy is "oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex". There's also the bit with the cigars.

I spent some time wondering, too, where we'd be if the Republican Congress hadn't wasted time and money and focus investigating Clinton instead of just accepting they lost the election.

Thats a false premise - instead of just accepting they lost the election. 1994 Crime Bill, Violence Against Women Act, language authored by NOW and signed by Clinton.

Clinton had a pattern and history of abusing women. Sodomizing subordinate employees [Lewinksy], groping campaign volunteers [Wiley], deny promotion to those women who refused to submit to sodomy [Jones], to say nothing of all the other hard working women who were denied interviews at Revlon and the UN simply because they didn't spread their legs for Clinton.

Are you trying to say the President should be above the law? Its not his fault that sexual discrimination and sexual harassment affected his job, its the fault of those who caught him?

Are you one of those feminists who think sexual harassment is "just about sex" when one of your own is the abuser?

Fen, I don't have to be defending Clinton from responsibility for his abusive actions in order to criticize the never-ending, unfocused investigations that started nearly the day he took office. Whitewater? Vince Foster? There's just gotta be something on this guy. The GOP put getting Clinton above the good of the country, and we got years of ineffective governance out of it.

It's possible to hold more than one thought in your head at one time. Clinton sex abuse=bad. Millions of dollars and years of investigations ending up in a single sex harrassment case=bad. There's lots of things I dislike about Clinton; he's not my hero by a longshot. And yet, I can still judge the GOP by their own actions.

Just not a brainwashed idiot who thinks Bush was appointed by God. A brainwashed idiot who thinks that Iraq started 9/11. A brainwashed idiot who thinks that Iraq still has WMD's. A brainwashed idiot who thinks that Iraq is "mission accomplished".

Call me a realist. I voted for Bush in 2000 and quickly lost faith in him as proved himself to be incompetent. The stock market still hasn't moved during his Presidency, which is all of the evidence I need to show how incompetent he is. Glad I had my money invested abroad.

I'm not defending the Democrats action in this matter. Of course the show should air. I'm just saying that I can completely understand why the democrats are doing what they are doing. And that the Republicans would be doing the exact same thing were the situation reversed (as it was with the Reagan miniseries).

Unlike you - I'm not a partisan hack and I can see the forest for the trees.

Fen, thanks for posting the link to the clips. Great show. Having watched the clips, I don't think that the Clintonistas are worried about the scene with Berger hanging up the phone. They're worried that the miniseries clearly extends the war against terror back into their watch, reminding the viewer of earlier terrorist attacks around the world and our failed and fickle attempts to swat at the problem. That was the main point I got from the show anyway. The war on terror was going on before we ever acknowledged it.

With all of the publicity, people at ABC would be fools to pull it. I had no intention of watching any television this week. If this airs, I'll definitely be watching.

I stand corrected. You appeared to be blaming the GOP for distracting Clinton from OBL and 9-11. Thanks for clearing it up. Sorry if I was an asshat about it.

No apology needed, Fen; let's get to know each other better before assuming either one of us is an asshat. Or we can just go ahead and assume that at one point or another, each of us will indulge in asshattery, and we'll get past it. I'm just having too much fun with that word. It could inspire a Mardi Gras costume. Instead of the Mad Hatter, I could go as the Ass Hatter. But should I wear an ass on my head, or a hat on my ass?

Elizabeth: I can get you a link to the actual hat [an internet gaming team made it] for Halloween. :)

downtownlad, perhaps I was a bit harsh. Maybe you really are a what you say. Show of hands - how many think a "libertarian" would willingly ignore [for three days & 300 comments] the distinction between public and government interference in a media broadcast?

Brent wrote: No one is asking you to read every Althouse post. But goodness, man, there were only 14 comments ahead of you - the people that took the time to write those weren't worthy of Icepick's time to find out where the conversation was going? How disrespectful! You just dissed 14 people! Please spare us your valuable insight!

Wrong again. There were 14 comments ahead of me this post, and I read all of them. What I did not read were all of the 100+ comments on this post, or all of the 200+ comments on this post. I was clearly referring to the earlier posts, as evidenced by the point where I stated "like most of the other 300+ comments on this blog concerning this topic."

Brent also wrote: I taught remedial reading at the local adult high school every spring for the last three years.

Sushizuki - The tech bubble had already burst by the time Bush entered office, 9 months earlier in fact. So the bar had already been lowered quite a bit by the time Bush took office.

And yes - if the Dow were to go up by 60%, what it needs to in order for the Bush stock market to return to the historical average of 10% a year, then yes, of course I'd give Bush credit. The stock market is the best measure of how the economy is doing.

It's possible to hold more than one thought in your head at one time. Clinton sex abuse=bad. Millions of dollars and years of investigations ending up in a single sex harrassment case=bad.

I'd like to point out that, to many of those who supported the impeachment, your second statement is akin to saying "all of the fuss over Ted Kennedy's Chappaquiddick accident amounting to nothing more than a charge for leaving the scene of the accident = bad". We quite agree -- we just disagree over WHY it was bad. Simply put, we think the Starr investigation was a fiasco because Clinton successfully covered up most of his crimes. The mysterious discovery of the long-subpoena'd and quite-incriminating Rose Law firm records in the White House residence (a place they had no legitimate reason to be) shortly after the statute of limitations had passed is a good example of this.

Two additional notes. First, Clinton was impeached on four charges, none of which were sexual harassment. Starr investigated Clinton for perjuring himself IN a sexual harassment case. Secondly, as Starr's investigation resulted in the conviction of fifteen of the Clintons' associates on federal charges ranging from fraud to tax evasion it cannot honestly be said that the Whitewater investigation only yielded one charge. It only yielded one charge against its primary target.

Libertarians happen to believe in "liberty" as their core belief in case you weren't aware of it. That means that the government can't dictate who I get to marry. That means the government should have zero say over the media, etc. But when you put organizations in place like the FCC, well guess what, then of course the government is going to apply political pressure (or threaten to) - because it can. I favor abolishing the FCC. The Republicans do not, because the theocrats like to use the FCC to censor things like - oh - CBS for example - when they fine CBS hundreds of thousands of dollars for Janet Jackson exposing a little flesh during the super bowl. That's censorship - except its the kind of censorship that Republicans favor - so suddenly it's o.k. The Bush White House is happy to use the FCC to advance its agenda. I don't hear anyone complaining about the arrest that was made the other day by the Bush White House of a porn producer. That's way more censorship than this piddly case if you ask me. And that guy is going to jail for five years.

Republicans are complete hypocrites. Democrats are complete hypocrites. Why are we surprised by this? So let's stop with the childish talk that this story is somehow new or different. Bullshit.

And yes - if the Dow were to go up by 60%, what it needs to in order for the Bush stock market to return to the historical average of 10% a year

This historical average yearly gain for the stock market was 7%. It is only 10% if you count the tech bubble. We're due for many years of less than 7% growth in stocks, simply because the stock market is still significantly overvalued by historical standards.

In other words, the market is still not done correcting for the absurdly inflated growth in stock prices during the 90s.

The stock market is the best measure of how the economy is doing.

Growth in per-capita GDP is the best measure of how the economy is doing.

Stock markets take in all information available to the market at the time. Just the fact that you'd make a statement like "the market is still not done correcting for the absurdly inflated growth in stock prices during the 90s." shows that you don't know what you're talking about.

You have no idea what the market is going to do in the future, just as I have no idea how it's going to do. And hundreds of millions of people have said that the market is fairly valued right now, which is why it is priced where it is. If they felt differently, the market would immediately move to its equilibrium level.

And the fact that the market has not budged since January of 2001 means that knowledge of hundreds of millions of investors have decided that the market is no better today than it was 5 1/2 years ago. The market has been stagnant. And as someone who works on Wall Street - that sucks.

Mario Savio said at the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley in 1964, in the action that restarted leftism in America, "unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! [Prolonged applause.] " Now the left, as Ned Lamont seemed this week is for what they had considered adultery before. Further as an earlier commenter elegantly pointed out, they found 'sexual harassment' and brought us right thinking on that before their was 'just a private sexual life (as a fruit of official finagling).' It was the hit your head in viewing it inveterate finagling of the Clintons' that really torched their opponents by the way. Now their for yanking as a fruit of their free speech. You asked, 'Why there are no campus antiwar demonstrations?' How can you have a rally if you might not have the latest set of cue cards. Their poor little minds are going, 'Now I know Bush = Hitler and Theresenstadt = Guantonomo = Gaza. But Mussolini might have liked the opera. Am I still against him? I was against the 'destruction of human flesh' but am for Roe. Do I wear panties? Are their panties in a wad? How can I demonstrate? What if I have cue cards version 1.0? Where is Mario when I need him? Where have you gone Mario Savio?"

Republicans are complete hypocrites. Democrats are complete hypocrites. Why are we surprised by this? So let's stop with the childish talk that this story is somehow new or different.

See, thats whats disingenuous and dishonest about you. Senate Dems have threatened to censor ABC unless they edit to include DNC talking points, and Republicans have never done such a thing. You want to shrug it all off by claiming that both sides do it, its no big deal, lets move on but you still can't provide examples of Republicans doing the same thing. Thats a dishonest debate tactic.

Both sides don't do it. And even if they did, it wouldn't be okay. Really strange that as an impartial "libertarian" you can't bring yourself to chastise this abuse of power without qualifiers...

Revenant, when I read that despite multi-millions of dollars and years of lawyer and investigator hours, Clinton got away with sinister, unrevealed crimes, I have to laugh. CDS rules. Thanks for the memories.

As far as Clinton's impeachment goes, he had it coming. We absolutely cannot have the POTUS exposing himself to blackmail. Period. What if Lewinsky had been a spy and then threatened to blow the lid on their affair unless he turned over top secret info or took some specific action? If he had been in the State Department, CIA, or DOD, he would have had his security clearance revoked with good reason.

I supported the decision to remove Saddam Hussein. I assumed we had some sort of plan as to what we were going to do afterward, though. Sadly, we did not.

The evidence is ample.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-21075sy0sep08,0,2264542.story?"Months before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of the Army Transportation Corps said Thursday."

AMANPOUR: In fact, bin Laden was a target. In 1996, Michael Scheuer helped create the CIA's bin Laden unit, which pinpointed the al Qaeda leader's exact location on several occasions.

MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER CHIEF OF CIA BIN LADEN UNIT: In fact, the first time we had an opportunity to capture bin Laden, everything was on track until they saw some swing set equipment in the farm where -- where bin Laden resided. And they said, oh, God. there's children. They thought, oh my God, we will get criticized if we do this.

AMANPOUR: So, they didn't. Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted, had escaped, and was free to continue his holy war against the United States.

"Senate Dems have threatened to censor ABC unless they edit to include DNC talking points, and Republicans have never done such a thing."

No need for hyperbole, Fen. The very most they have threatened to do is fine ABC, which is what the FCC did to CBS for airing the Janet Jackson boob and countless other programs deemed to be violating regulations. Is that censorship or democracy?

I know there's a lot of Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, and Lost fans out there so I repeat...ABC isn't going anywhere, not a single station.

No, some of us knew better when Jimmie Carter encouraged the mullahs to oust the Shah in Iran and the ragheads took Americans hostage for 444 days.

Look, ya'll can be magnanimous and all and fudge the way-back machine and carry on about how no one could have known before 9/11, but that's baloney. There have been a good number of us who have been wailing about radical islam since the '70's.

As an Apollo engineer said in the movie Apollo 13, "People, let's work the problem." There'll be time later to figure out why it happened and whose fault, if anyone's, it may have been.

The question before us should be 'How do we prevail?'

One first step is to teach your children and grandchildren to celebrate and treasure our nation and its values because they're both worth fighting and dying for...because at the present rate--based on all the internecine sniping above and the state of the world--we're going to be at this for a long, long time.

1) Bush is incompetent...Katrina, Iraq, etc...how could you reach any other conclusion?

2) The economy is in shambles...don't pay any attention to economic statistics...all lies...personal anecdotes tell the story of life in America.

3) Bush is a liar. (Repeat endlessly, regardless of facts).

4) Things will be better when the Dems regain power without a hint of a plan. ("its the admin's responsibility to have public plans". Whatever happened to Kerry's secret plan to solve the mess in Iraq?)

5) Things were just fine when Clinton was President.

Dems are deeply paranoid about anything that might derail their drive to regain power...in their hearts they do not trust the people and therefore don't really believe in democracy any more.

Hence the hysterical caterwauling over this docudrama. They want to keep the focus on Bush.

noah said... 4) Things will be better when the Dems regain power without a hint of a plan. ("its the admin's responsibility to have public plans". Whatever happened to Kerry's secret plan to solve the mess in Iraq?)

I have to admit that is one thing I like much better about the British system. The shadow cabinet. The out of power party staffs a MP for each of the cabinet ministries who coordinates and articulates the party position and is the titular replacement Minister. Plans are not optional

No need for hyperbole, Fen. The very most they have threatened to do is fine ABC, which is what the FCC did to CBS for airing the Janet Jackson boob and countless other programs deemed to be violating regulations. Is that censorship or democracy?

No hyperbole. The implied threat is that they will have their license yanked if they refuse to accept "corrections" from Senate Dems.

Your Jackson analogy is flawed - those are decency standards, not free speech.

But lets assume your version - Congress can levy fines on media for distorting the truth? You're cool with that eh? How about we dig up every piece of misinformation in the NYTs and threaten to fine them for each one?

We absolutely cannot have the POTUS exposing himself to blackmail. Period.

If I agree to that, I'll have to agree that we should have been investigating every president's sexual contacts. That would have had to include Bush pere. If yours is the standard to follow, then every rumor should trigger a special prosecutor.

The begger issue is that we have to make sure no one gets a job inside the White House who could be a danger to the president, with or without sex being involved.

hundreds of millions of people have said that the market is fairly valued right now, which is why it is priced where it is. If they felt differently, the market would immediately move to its equilibrium level.

What a load of horseshit!

Look, moron, if the market was always right about prices, bubbles would never HAPPEN. The fact that they do proves that stock market prices can inaccurately reflect the value of the businesses they represent.

Revenant, when I read that despite multi-millions of dollars and years of lawyer and investigator hours, Clinton got away with sinister, unrevealed crimes, I have to laugh. CDS rules

Let me guess -- you're one of those idiots who thinks OJ Simpson was innocent, too. After all, the government spent millions of dollars and years of lawyers' time trying to get a conviction on him and couldn't. And he, unlike Clinton, wasn't even the most powerful person on Earth.

Anyway, I never said Clinton was guilty of "sinister, unrevealed crimes". He and his wife were, in my opinion, guilty of fraud and accepting bribes, which are entirely typical crimes for politicians -- and, of course, ones of which quite a few of their friends and business partners were found guilty. Of course, maybe the Clintons were just amazing *gullible* Rhodes Scholars and high-powered attorneys, and had no idea they were doing business with criminals. Yeah... that's it.

One last note -- it doesn't take "Clinton derangement syndrome" to look at Clinton pardoning Mark Rich after large cash donations had been made to the Clinton library and Hillary's Senate campaign and think "hm, now that looks like a bribe to me". I guess a sufficiently stupid person could believe Clinton only started taking bribes *after* the Starr investigation was over, but I'm not that gullible. :)